We recognize that professional firms and licensed service providers are frequently at risk of being sued over the services they perform.
Our Miscellaneous Professional Liability (MPL) Practice Group is broad-based and includes many senior attorneys who have significant experience in the defense of large-exposure, politically sensitive and complex cases. We thoroughly examine each case upon intake to ensure that the right attorney with the appropriate experience is assigned to the case for that particular professional.
When it comes to defending clients in MPL matters, our attorneys have handled thousands of professional Errors & Omissions suits in all seven states where we maintain our offices and in neighboring jurisdictions where we are licensed to practice. We counsel and defend a wide-ranging client base, including, but not limited to:
- Advertising/marketing/public relations
- Alarm monitoring services
- Associations
- Auctioneer
- Background screeners
- Bookkeeping and/or tax preparation services
- Business brokers
- Cell tower acquisition/leasing
- Employment agencies/staffing services
- Environmental analysts
- Event/conference planners and venues
- Freight forwarders/customs house brokers
- Funeral homes and cemeteries
- Graphic designers
- Human resources outsourcing
- Insurance agents and brokers
- Life coaches
- Management and strategic consultants
- Medical billers/coders
- Medical practice management
- Payroll processors
- Probation officers
- Professional employer organizations
- Specialty consultants
- Technical writers
- Trustee services
- Utility/energy credit brokers
Results
Investigation Against Home Appraiser Shut Down by Defense
We successfully defended a home appraiser in a regulatory investigation undertaken by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Bureau of Enforcement relating to the appraisal of a five-acre parcel of property. The complainant contended the valuation arrived at by the appraiser (as part of a divorce proceeding) was artificially low given the fact the parcel was sub-dividable. We convinced the investigator that the appraisal number arrived at was in line with comparable properties in the area, particularly given some of the ingress issues involved in accessing the property. After an in-person interview of the appraiser and submissions, the investigator elected to shut the investigation down and take no further action against the appraiser.
Successful Representation of Home Appraiser in Regulatory Investigation
The investigation was undertaken by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Bureau of Enforcement relating to the appraisal of a five-acre parcel of property. The complainant contended the valuation arrived at by the appraiser (as part of a divorce proceeding) was artificially low given the fact the parcel was sub-dividable. We convinced the investigator that the appraisal number arrived at was in line with comparable properties in the area, particularly given some of the ingress issues involved in accessing the property. After an in-person interview of the appraiser and submissions, the investigator elected to shut the investigation down and take no further action against the appraiser.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Pennsylvania Court Affirms No Duty for Brokers on Property Suitability Under the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act.
April 1, 2026
In P. Perez Real Estate v. Homesale Real Estate Services, Inc., decided in December 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of real estate brokers and an agent in a professional liability dispute. The plaintiffs, a real estate holding and management company, argued that the brokers owed a duty to determine whether certain commercial properties were suitable for their intended use and should have known about a local highway revitalization plan affecting the properties. The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the broker defendants, finding that under the Pennsylvania Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act, brokers are required to exercise reasonable professional skill and deal honestly in a transaction, but they do not have a statutory duty to independently investigate whether a property is appropriate for a buyer’s particular commercial purposes or specific future municipal plans. The decision reinforces limits on real estate agent liability in professional negligence claims and clarifies the scope of duties a licensed agent owes under Pennsylvania law.
Case Law Alerts
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Upholds State Court Decisions
April 1, 2026
On March 10, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, reinforced the decisions of the state court and its power to issue final judgments, including sanctions through the dismissal of the adversarial complaint. After years of complex litigation, the state court issued economic sanctions against the plaintiff for multiple offenses, including frivolous litigation and violations of sealing orders. These sanctions included attorney’s fees. The plaintiff failed to pay the sanctions, and they were subsequently entered as judgments, and then recorded as liens on her property. The current action arose after the plaintiff sold the property and noticed the recorded liens, despite the previous court notices. The plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in federal bankruptcy court seeking, a “judicial determination that the lien was fraudulent in origin and of no legal effect,” and sued the attorneys and their firms from the underlying state court matter. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on several bases, including: “(1) the Debtor lacks standing to bring the claims asserted in the Complaint; (2) the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (3) the claims are barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and the entire controversy doctrine; (4) the Complaint fails to state a cause of action; (5) the claims are barred by litigation privilege; (6) the Complaint improperly seeks an advisory opinion.” The court granted the motions to dismiss for multiple reasons. First, the court agreed that the plaintiff did not have standing to pursue a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee. Secondly, the court found that the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because she sought to have the bankruptcy court rule that judgments entered by the state courts were invalid. The court found that they lacked the jurisdiction to consider the sanctions and their legitimacy under Rooker Feldman. Subsequentially, the court dismissed the matter because it was already litigated in state court, therefore issue preclusion barred the relitigating of the issue. Additionally, it was determined that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because she made conclusory statements, but did not make factual allegations to support the claims. Lastly, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim because it was impermissible for federal courts to give advisory opinions based on the hypothetical statement of facts.
